Can attempts at inclusion actually result in exclusion?
Staff networks are often lauded as engines of inclusion. They offer marginalised groups a voice, build community, and help steer organisational culture. But two recent tribunal cases: Wilkins v Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and Newman v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, reveal a more complex reality. Both cases involved staff who held gender-critical (GC) beliefs, a protected philosophical belief under UK law since Forstater v CGD Europe [2021]. In both instances, internal staff networks and forums created, or were alleged to have created, environments hostile to these beliefs.
Staff networks remain vital to workplace culture. But their growing influence means they must operate within legal boundaries. Unmoderated forums and unchecked activism are not safe spaces, they are legal liabilities.
As these cases show, failure to maintain balance and legal compliance can result in reputational damage, tribunal claims, and a fractured workforce. The future of inclusion depends on getting this right: empowering staff networks, while embedding policies that uphold dignity, respect, and the law.
What are staff networks?
Staff networks, sometimes called employee resource groups (ERGs), are voluntary, employee-led groups focused on shared identities, experiences, or interests. In the UK, they commonly centre on race, gender, LGBTQ+ identity, religion, disability, or other legally protected characteristics.
Originally a form of grassroots inclusion, many are now formally recognised by HR, sponsored by senior leaders, and involved in influencing policy, culture, and training. But this institutional backing creates a blurred line between employee activism and employer responsibility, especially when networks host events or post on internal systems.
Why is protected belief a key issue for organisations?
The UK workplace has become a legal battleground for balancing protected beliefs and freedom of expression with employers’ concerns about reputation and inclusivity. A landmark case in this area, Higgs v Farmor’s School, has set an important precedent regarding the legal protections for employees who express their beliefs outside of work.
The tension between freedom of expression and workplace inclusivity has become a major issue in UK employment law. Recent cases, including Higgs v Farmor’s School, Forstater v CGD Europe, and Bailey v Garden Court Chambers, have highlighted the legal complexities surrounding protected beliefs, particularly in the context of gender-critical views and transgender rights.
Further cases have confirmed that this area of equality law can have complex and unforeseen ramifications, and potentially create legal liability when staff forums are allowed to be breeding grounds of discrimination.
Wilkins v Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
The first case looks at Mr Wilkins, a long-serving engineer, who held gender-critical views and raised repeated concerns over content posted on an internal discussion forum by PRISM, the LGBTQ+ staff network.
He alleged that several posts created a hostile environment for those with gender critical beliefs. After 15 months of internal complaints which were largely ignored, dismissed, or mishandled, Mr Wilkins resigned and sued for constructive dismissal, harassment, and discrimination.
Key legal findings
- GC beliefs are protected: The tribunal reaffirmed Forstater, ruling that Mr Wilkins’ beliefs qualified as protected under the Equality Act 2010.
- Harassment occurred: Specific posts, including those labelling GC individuals as “transphobes” or “Nazis”, were ruled to have created a hostile and degrading environment.
- Employer liability upheld: The tribunal rejected the idea that personal posts absolved the employer of responsibility. If a forum is workplace-sanctioned, liability applies.
- Discrimination by omission: The employer’s failure to act on complaints or moderate content amounted to direct discrimination.
- Constructive dismissal proven: The employer’s repeated failures breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Newman v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
The second case considers Ms Newman, a trainee detective, who attended an online “Trans Day of Visibility” event hosted by the Met’s LGBT+ staff network. One speaker (Eva Echo) made derogatory comments about gender-critical views, calling them “cult-like” and “motivated by hate”. Ms Newman complained but was told her grievance didn’t fit within existing HR frameworks. She brought a tribunal claim for harassment and discrimination.
Key legal findings
- Third-party liability dodged — for now: Because the offensive comments came from an external speaker not directly acting as the Met’s agent, the Met avoided liability under current law.
- However… upcoming changes matter: From 2026, the Employment Rights Act will make employers liable for third-party harassment unless they can show they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent it.
- Lack of due diligence is a risk: The Met had no policy to vet external speakers or oversee what would be said. This was a major procedural weakness flagged by the tribunal.
- Environment still matters: The Met was criticised for its inaction and failure to anticipate risks. The tribunal noted its failure to consider how GC-believing staff might experience such events.
The legal minefield: How staff networks create liability
Staff networks exist to amplify inclusion, but without the right legal guardrails, they can expose employers to significant compliance risk. As the tribunals in Wilkins and Newman demonstrate, what begins as an internal blog post or a staff-organised event can quickly escalate into a legal quagmire.
The turning point in much of this litigation is Forstater v CGD Europe [2021], where the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that gender-critical beliefs (the view that sex is binary and immutable later confirmed by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland) are protected under the Equality Act 2010. These cases now form the bedrock of a growing number of claims where belief-based discrimination stems from workplace culture or staff network activity.
In Wilkins, the organisation failed to understand this legal precedent. It allowed a staff network to post unchecked commentary online, including remarks that implied people with GC views were “transphobes” or “bigots”. The tribunal didn’t just find this created a hostile work environment, it explicitly ruled that the employer’s failure to moderate the platform or respond to complaints constituted direct discrimination and harassment.
This is where Section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 becomes crucial. Employers are legally responsible for discriminatory acts by their employees “in the course of employment,” even if those acts are not officially sanctioned. In Wilkins, the employer tried to argue that since the blogs were written by individuals, it wasn’t responsible. The tribunal firmly rejected that line of defence. A platform owned, managed, or endorsed by an organisation falls within its legal remit, and ignoring problematic content is not a shield against liability.
Then there’s the issue of external speakers. In Newman v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Met avoided liability largely because the speaker in question — a trans activist who denigrated GC beliefs — was not formally acting as its agent. But this defence won’t hold for long. When the Employment Rights Act comes into force in 2026, employers will be liable for third-party harassment during the course of employment unless they can prove they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent it. The tribunal in Newman made clear that the Met had no policy requiring due diligence on external speakers and no safeguards to prevent discriminatory speech. If the same event were held post-2026, the outcome could be very different.
A parallel cautionary tale comes from Borg-Neal v Lloyds Banking Group (2022), where a delegate sued after a trainer mishandled a sensitive discussion about race. That case underscored the principle that liability can extend not just to what is said, but how it’s facilitated. It reinforced that both internal and external trainers must be properly briefed, trained, and monitored to prevent unlawful discrimination, a key risk when staff networks independently book speakers or host events.
These legal precedents expose several red flags for employers who have staff networks or employee resource groups:
- Unmoderated forums: As in Wilkins, internal communication tools left unchecked can become breeding grounds for harassment and ideological exclusion.
- Ideological imbalance: Promoting one set of beliefs while silencing others — even informally — can breach the requirement for equal treatment under the Equality Act.
- No speaker vetting: Newman shows that inviting external speakers without due diligence is a compliance risk, one that will only grow under the Employment Rights Act
- Untrained staff network leaders: Without legal or HR training, network leaders may inadvertently post or facilitate discussions that veer into discriminatory territory.
- Dismissed complaints: In both Wilkins and Newman, grievance mechanisms failed. Ignoring or downplaying concerns about belief-based discrimination can turn a culture problem into a legal case.
- Leadership signalling: Senior officers attending staff network events, as in Newman, without oversight or moderation, risks signalling institutional endorsement of controversial views, even unintentionally.
The bottom line is that staff networks don’t exist in a vacuum. They operate within the legal ecosystem of the workplace, and when left unmanaged, they can expose organisations to reputational, operational, and legal fallout. The solution however isn’t to silence networks, but structure them legally and compliantly, with clear policies, boundaries, and shared accountability.
Balancing autonomy and compliance for staff networks
Staff networks serve an important purpose and should not be disbanded due to legal risk. The solution is not suppression, but structure. The key is to support autonomy without abdicating responsibility.
Principles for a legally sound approach
Policy and oversight
- Implement clear policies governing staff networks’ operations, particularly around communications and event planning.
- Define boundaries: Networks are employee-led but must align with corporate codes of conduct and legal obligations.
Speaker vetting
- Require formal approval for external speakers.
- Conduct due diligence for controversial topics and confirm alignment with Equality Act obligations and respectful discourse.
Training and education
- Train network leads and HR on the Equality Act, harassment law, and the treatment of competing protected beliefs.
- Educate staff about the protection of GC and other philosophical beliefs.
Impartial moderation of internal platforms
- Moderators should remove or edit posts that breach conduct policies regardless of ideological alignment.
- Avoid one-sided enforcement.
Complaint escalation routes
- Ensure clear, neutral grievance pathways exist for complaints involving staff networks.
- Avoid the “not our remit” problem, all protected belief complaints must be investigated fairly.
Cultural neutrality at leadership level
- Senior staff should remain impartial in workplace belief disputes to avoid perceived endorsement or discrimination.
A legal turning point for staff networks
These cases are not about banning discussion or restricting identity-based support. They’re about managing competing rights in legally compliant ways.
The law requires respect, not ideological alignment. A network that supports one group must not, directly or indirectly, create hostility for another. Employers who pick sides may be violating the very equality laws they aim to uphold.
